Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this common? I’m surprised they would really yank a student after the school year started. Is this just for PK?

Also, is myschooldc part of DCPS? I’d think you would hear something officially from the school itself.

The school doesn’t want to be the bad guy. They’d rather MySchoolDC be the heavy. But my guess is the school is the one who blew the whistle. They are aware now that you were just using them for daycare and they want you out. And rightly so.

This is strange to me too. The school should be the one kicking the child out not myschooldc. What authority does the latter have at this point except to inform the school of the change in OP’s older child’s enrollment? It is sketchy OP but at this point I would just stop responding to them and let the school handle it.

OP represents a family that has already been at the school so there are probably relationships and I can understand the principal not wanting to have to be the person who tells her that she is violating the rules and has to leave. OP you’re asking for a confrontation, So if you’re ready for that and the fall out and keep bringing your child there. Personally I would do the right thing and recognize and except that I’m not following the policy and would leave. You knew what you were doing from the start. Even if you come back to this thread and try and say you’re older child got a lottery spot Last minus I won’t believe you. You would’ve states that in your original post

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

Anonymous wrote:
Hey pp, I know you’re getting a kick out of insulting the earlier poster’s intelligence, but remember there are a good number of parents submitting applications that are barely literate. It’s really not too much to ask to highlight a critical policy such as this one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Not OP, and I'm standing by this. I enrolled DC #2 via sibling preference back in April after the lottery. It said "enrolled" all summer long. When you click on enrolled in the database, it says she has turned in her paperwork and is all set for school. It says nothing about losing enrollment if her sibling moves schools. Despite all the push back here, communication should be better about this policy because the consequences are really serious if you don't understand it. I have heard stories from others, so I do believe it comes up.

Is your DC #2 in PK?

The frequency of someone uses sibling preference to get a child into PK but then moves the older child away last-minute can’t be high as a matter of natural occurrence. But it is a situation vulnerable to abuse if permitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Not OP, and I'm standing by this. I enrolled DC #2 via sibling preference back in April after the lottery. It said "enrolled" all summer long. When you click on enrolled in the database, it says she has turned in her paperwork and is all set for school. It says nothing about losing enrollment if her sibling moves schools. Despite all the push back here, communication should be better about this policy because the consequences are really serious if you don't understand it. I have heard stories from others, so I do believe it comes up.

Do you think if you live in one area and are accepted based on residency, and it says "enrolled" all summer long, but you move before school starts, that your residency change shouldn't affect the placement?

"Sibling preference" is explicitly to keep siblings together. If the siblings aren't together, then what is the justification for taking that slot from another kid who has a different special reason to jump the waitlist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Not OP, and I'm standing by this. I enrolled DC #2 via sibling preference back in April after the lottery. It said "enrolled" all summer long. When you click on enrolled in the database, it says she has turned in her paperwork and is all set for school. It says nothing about losing enrollment if her sibling moves schools. Despite all the push back here, communication should be better about this policy because the consequences are really serious if you don't understand it. I have heard stories from others, so I do believe it comes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Not OP, and I'm standing by this. I enrolled DC #2 via sibling preference back in April after the lottery. It said "enrolled" all summer long. When you click on enrolled in the database, it says she has turned in her paperwork and is all set for school. It says nothing about losing enrollment if her sibling moves schools. Despite all the push back here, communication should be better about this policy because the consequences are really serious if you don't understand it. I have heard stories from others, so I do believe it comes up.

Do you think if you live in one area and are accepted based on residency, and it says "enrolled" all summer long, but you move before school starts, that your residency change shouldn't affect the placement?

"Sibling preference" is explicitly to keep siblings together. If the siblings aren't together, then what is the justification for taking that slot from another kid who has a different special reason to jump the waitlist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Not OP, and I'm standing by this. I enrolled DC #2 via sibling preference back in April after the lottery. It said "enrolled" all summer long. When you click on enrolled in the database, it says she has turned in her paperwork and is all set for school. It says nothing about losing enrollment if her sibling moves schools. Despite all the push back here, communication should be better about this policy because the consequences are really serious if you don't understand it. I have heard stories from others, so I do believe it comes up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.

A. This isn't "months later." This is before the PS3 has even started school. There is discretion, yes ("might" in the wording), but school hasn't even started for the sibling.

B. Sure, so you BOGO free with two loaves, walk towards the door, but decide to return one before you leave. You want your money back AND to keep the free second loaf. Really? It's counterintuitive that you have to give it back, too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Holy cannolis, exactly how much hand-holding do you need?

If they make more details about how yes, they really do mean the rules as they are listed, you'd complain that there is too much to read, and you can't be expected to make sense of all the text.

It's clear. If it isn't -- because you can't make sense of simple things for some reason -- it will be explained to you when you communicate with the school about changes.

If you can't read and don't talk, then yes, you are going to be surprised by things other people find obvious. That's a hard life.

Hey pp, I know you’re getting a kick out of insulting the earlier poster’s intelligence, but remember there are a good number of parents submitting applications that are barely literate. It’s really not too much to ask to highlight a critical policy such as this one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

How is it counterintuitive to lose sibling preference if the sibling doesn't go to the school?

It's just as counterintuitive as walking into a store with a BOGO free special on loaves of bread, deciding you only want one after all when you get to the register, and then being shocked (!) that it isn't free.

Who. could. have. known.

There should have been a sign explaining that BOGO free specials only apply if you are actually buying one, because counterintuitive.

A huge difference, actually. When you look in "MySchoolDC" your child is "enrolled." Using your analogy, you have bought both loves of bread and walked out of the store. There is no asterisk, no warning, about becoming un-enrolled months later if one child is successful in the lottery and obtains an offer from a preferred school. With such a serious outcome, there absolutely needs to be more explanation.